Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harpal Singh vs Financial Commissioner on 15 November, 2013

Bench: Jasbir Singh, G. S. Sandhawalia

            Letters Patent Appeal No.1354 of 2012                         -1-




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH


                                           Civil Misc. No.3578-LPA of 2012 and
                                           Letters Patent Appeal No.1354 of 2012
                                           Date of decision:-15.11.2013

            Harpal Singh

                                                                    ...Appellant

                                           Versus

            Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab and others

                                                                    ...Respondents


            CORAM:               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SANDHAWALIA


            Present:- Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with
                      Mr. Sunny Saggar, Advocate
                      for the applicant-appellant.

                                 Mr. K.K. Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab
                                 for respondents No.1 to 3.

                                 Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate
                                 for respondent No.4.

            JASBIR SINGH J.(Oral)

C.M.No.3578-LPA of 2012 For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.1354 of 2012

This appeal has been filed against an order passed by learned Single Bench on 12.03.2012.

Asija Vijay 2013.12.07 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Letters Patent Appeal No.1354 of 2012 -2-

Respondent No.4 filed a petition against the appellant for his ejectment to the extent of 103/879 share out of 44 Kanals 09 Marlas of land, description of which was given in that application. Vide an ex-parte order dated 22.4.2002 ejectment was ordered. That order has become final. The respondent No.4, thereafter filed an application for execution, however, it was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 17.4.2003. His appeal was dismissed on 08.11.2005. The revision also went in the same way on 29.4.2008. Respondent No.4 also failed before the Financial Commissioner on 20.4.2010. Thereafter he filed Civil Writ Petition No.13302 of 2010, which after contest was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 12.3.2012. By making reference to the record, it was noted that respondent No.4 is owner of the land in dispute and in view of that he has a right to get order dated 22.4.2002 executed against the appellant. At the time of arguments, reference has been made to a sale deed executed by respondent No.4 in favour of the appellant on 08.12.1981. Perusal thereof shows that vide that sale deed out of the land, subject matter of order, passed on 22.4.2002 the respondent No.4 has sold 01 Kanal 05 Marlas of land to the petitioner. As per documents on record respondent No.4 is claiming 05 Kanals and 03 Marlas of land from the land in dispute. The ejectment order was passed for the entire land. So far as the land measuring 01 Kanal and 05 Marlas is concerned, which the appellant Asija Vijay 2013.12.07 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Letters Patent Appeal No.1354 of 2012 -3- has purchased from respondent No.4 on 08.12.1981, ejectment order cannot be enforced against that land. The matter is sent back to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to execute order dated 22.4.2002 qua the land in dispute except 01 Kanal 05 Marlas of land, which the petitioner has purchased from respondent No.4 vide a sale deed on 08.12.1981. The Executing Court shall make measurement at the spot and if it is so found that the appellant is in possession of land more than 01 Kanal and 05 Marlas, he be ejected from that portion of land.

Disposed of.



                                                      ( JASBIR SINGH )
                                                           JUDGE



            November 15, 2013                       ( G. S. SANDHAWALIA )
            Vijay Asija                                       JUDGE




Asija Vijay
2013.12.07 12:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court,Chandigarh